Opinion
April 14, 1993
Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Marks, J.
Present — Callahan, J.P., Green, Fallon, Boomer and Boehm, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant's contention that the showup identification was unduly suggestive. According appropriate weight to the findings made by the suppression court (see, People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761), we conclude that the showup was conducted in the interest of prompt identification (see, People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023, 1024; People v Minter, 186 A.D.2d 1035, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 764).
Defendant was apprehended a short distance from the crime scene within 20 minutes of the occurrence. He was returned to the area and positively identified as the perpetrator. Although defendant's identification while he was handcuffed and seated in the rear of a police car "presses judicial tolerance to its limits", the record supports the suppression court's finding that it was not unduly suggestive (see, People v Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 545; see also, People v Hunt, 187 A.D.2d 981; People v Jones, 149 A.D.2d 970, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 742).